Ellis v. Boggs

• Decision Date: 02 July 1940
• Docket Number: Case Number: 29142
• Citation: 1940 OK 333,104 P.2d 244,187 Okla. 544
• Parties: ELLIS v. BOGGS et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1940 OK 333

104 P.2d 244

187 Okla. 544

ELLIS v. BOGGS et al.

Case Number: 29142

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: July 2, 1940

Syllabus

¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR--Review--Sufficiency of evidence in equity case.

In an action of equitable cognizance this court will weigh the evidence, and will not disturb the judgment of the trial court where it is not against the clear weight of the evidence.

2. DEEDS-- Cancellation of conveyance of all property made by aged and infirm woman to niece without consideration.

Where a conveyance of all the property of an aged and infirm woman was made to her niece, in whose home the grantor was seriously ill at the time, and the deed was made without consideration, and under circumstances tending to show that the grantor, by reason of her infirmity, was unable to fully understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of her act, such deed may be set aside in an action brought by the heirs of the grantor after her death.

3. TRIAL--Discretion of court as to reopening case for additional evidence.

In a cause of equitable cognizance, the trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, after the close of the evidence, reopen the case to permit the introduction of additional evidence, when all parties are present, and no advantage is taken of either party.

4. PLEADING--Wide discretion of trial court in permitting amendments.

By section 251, O. S. 1931, 12 O. S. A. § 317, the trial court is vested with wide discretion in permitting amendment to pleadings, where such amendment does not change substantially the claim or defense.

Appeal from District Court, Haskell County; Ben W. Belew, Judge.

Action by Consuello Ellis against H. O. Boggs and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

S. F. Brown, of McAlester, Wm. G. Stigler, of Stigler, and R. H. Matthews, of McAlester, for plaintiff in error.

M. O. Counts, of Hartshorne, for defendants in error.

HURST, J.

¶1 Consuello Ellis brought this action against defendant Boggs and others to quiet her title to 80 acres of land in Haskell county. She claimed title to the land under a deed from her aunt, Missie Riddle. Defendants Josie Bryson, John Ware, Clarence Black, and Olive Dixon, as sole heirs of Missie Riddle, by answer and cross-petition alleged that the plaintiff's deed was void because of the mental incapacity of Missie Riddle at the time the deed was executed, and was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation on the part of plaintiff. It was further alleged that there was no consideration for the deed. After the trial the trial court permitted these defendants to file a supplement or amendment to their cross-petition, alleging as a further ground that plaintiff and her attorney, who was present when the deed was taken, occupied a fiduciary relationship to Missie Riddle, and that the taking of the deed to plaintiff was the result of the abuse of such relationship. The trial court found that at the time the deed to plaintiff was executed the grantor was so enfeebled mentally and physically that she was not capable of appreciating the consequences of her act; that a fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and the grantor, and that plaintiff occupied a dominant position by reason of the trust and confidence of Missie Riddle in plaintiff, and that Missie Riddle had no independent counsel or advice; that there was no sufficient consideration for the deed, and that after its execution plaintiff led Missie Riddle to believe that she was not claiming title to the land by virtue of the deed. The court canceled the deed, and decreed the four defendants above named the owners of the land as the sole heirs of Missie Riddle. Plaintiff appeals.

¶2 Plaintiff makes five contentions in her brief. One contention, that the trial court erred in admitting incompetent evidence, is not argued, and will not be considered. The remaining contentions involve three propositions: (1) That the judgment is not supported by the evidence; (2) that the trial court reopened the case after rendering judgment; and (3) that the trial court erred in permitting the filing of the supplement or amendment to the cross-petition of defendants.

1. Plaintiff's first contention requires an analysis of the evidence. Therefrom it appears that Missie Riddle, the grantor in plaintiff's deed, was a colored woman about 61 years of age at the time the deed was executed. Plaintiff was her niece, the daughter of the defendant Josie Bryson. The land had been deeded to Missie by her husband, who died some six months before the deed was made. Missie Riddle was afflicted with high blood pressure, and in June, 1931, while in the home of plaintiff, suffered a mild stroke of paralysis. On December 19, 1931, at the home of plaintiff, she suffered a second and much more serious stroke, which completely paralyzed the left side of her body. On January 2, 1932, while still confined to her bed by reason of her paralyzed condition, she executed the deed to plaintiff, by which she conveyed to plaintiff all her property. She died in 1936 after a third stroke. These facts are undisputed. On other material points the evidence conflicts sharply. The witnesses, for the most part, were colored. As the trial occurred in 1938, their recollection of events transpiring six or seven years previously was to some extent vague and uncertain.

¶3 The evidence is voluminous, and it would serve no useful purpose to unduly lengthen this opinion by setting it out in detail. Suffice it to say that the evidence of defendants tended to prove that when the deed was taken Missie was not expected to live; that she was advised that it was a will, and that she was in a sort of stupor, but was raised up in her bed to sign the instrument, which was not read or explained to her; that upon being asked to whom she desired to leave her property, she pointed to the three children of plaintiff, standing at the foot of her bed, and said "those girls." Defendants also put in evidence certain letters from plaintiff and her...